TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Classification of Supplies to SEZ Developers under Cenvat Credit Rules: Legal Analysis and Interpretation</h1> <h3>Commissioner Versus Siemens Limited</h3> Commissioner Versus Siemens Limited - 2015 (321) E.L.T. A225 (Bom.) Issues:1. Whether supplies from DTA unit to SEZ developer as 'exports' are entitled to exemption under Rule 6(6) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004Rs.2. Whether the amendment to Rule 6(6)(ii) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is applicable with retrospective effectRs.3. Whether Cenvat credit is available for inputs in the finished product supplied to developers of SEZRs.Analysis:1. The first issue pertains to whether supplies from a DTA unit to an SEZ developer should be considered as 'exports' and thus qualify for exemption under Rule 6(6) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The contention revolves around the interpretation of the term 'exports' in the context of such transactions. The Tribunal's decision is under scrutiny, and the argument presented by the Revenue challenges the correctness of this interpretation.2. The second issue involves the retrospective application of an amendment to Rule 6(6)(ii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 through Notification No. 50/2008-C.E. (N.T.), dated 31-12-2008. The dispute arises from conflicting views on the applicability of this amendment with respect to supplies made post its notification date. The Circular issued by the Board clarifying the prospective nature of the notification adds complexity to the matter, questioning the Tribunal's stance on the retrospective effect of the amendment.3. The final issue questions the availability of Cenvat credit for inputs used in the finished product supplied to developers of SEZ. The comparison with a previous case involving Sujana Metal Products Ltd. highlights the distinction between treating supplies to SEZ developers as exports of dutiable goods versus the eligibility for Cenvat credit on inputs. The Tribunal's reliance on a previous decision is being contested, emphasizing the specific circumstances of the present case regarding the availability of Cenvat credit.In conclusion, the judgment delves into intricate aspects of tax law and trade regulations concerning supplies to SEZ developers, retrospective application of amendments, and the eligibility for Cenvat credit. The arguments put forth by both parties reflect the complexity of the issues at hand, requiring a detailed analysis of legal provisions and precedents to arrive at a just decision.
TaxTMI 